Failure of governance is the biggest crisis facing the Church

Scandals, including those involving child abuse and the Vatican Bank, make the task of evangelisation harder

There is a crisis in Catholicism. Everyone knows that, though just where the crisis is located is a matter of disagreement.

Some people say the crisis is to do with doctrine, and they point to the matters of Humanae Vitae, same sex relations, divorce and remarriage. I disagree. I do not think there is any such crisis. All the Church’s teachings are securely founded on scripture and tradition as far as I am concerned. To loosen the anchors of either would be to let the magisterium drift on the open seas, subject to every passing wind: now that really would be a crisis of doctrine.

Others say the crisis is to do with prayer, and all our problems are caused by our failure to pray. Certainly, we can always do with more prayer in the Church, and the Church cannot pray too much. But the falling off in prayer is not a cause of the crisis in my opinion, it is rather a symptom of it. People have given up on prayer, if indeed they have, because they have been discouraged from doing it because of the crisis of government in the Church.

This is the real crisis – the failures in government at all levels. As anointed people we are called to be prophets, priests and kings, like Christ the Anointed One, and we have seriously failed in our call as kings, that is to say as administrators of worldly goods and as man managers. Remember, the two great heroes of the Old Testament are King David, the great leader of men, and his son, King Solomon, the wise ruler and administrator of a huge empire. The anti-heroes are Saul, who lost the kingdom, and people like Jezebel and Ahab, who were not proper kings but tyrants, exploiting people for their own ends, not ruling for the common good.

How is this crisis of government apparent? Well, take this story from this paper’s website, about the Father General of the Camillan Order trying to rig, allegedly, his re-election. I knew the Camillans in Africa, and there are many good people in that order, but, if this story is true, something has gone seriously wrong in the order’s governance. Moreover, though the details are much less piquant, what is true for the Camillans is true for numerous other orders in the Church. I could give details, but one does not want to wash dirty linen in public.

The crisis of government is also apparent in the child abuse scandals that have rocked the Church.

First of all, if the religious life had been functioning properly, and if religious superiors had been doing their job, they would never have put children into the care of risky individuals, or if they had, they would have realised their mistake sooner rather than later. After all, religious orders are supposed to discern where the talents (and weaknesses) of individual members lie; many orders practice manifestation of conscience, or something similar. Again, religious superiors are supposed to supervise the works for which they are responsible. So, any incidence of child abuse in the ambience of a religious order shows that that Order was not functioning according to its rule. (This does not hold to the same extent for a diocese where there is no close community life, though in a diocesan setting something similar could be said – the diocesan authorities have the duty to supervise the people under their command).

Secondly, and even more importantly, when abuse took place, if the superiors had followed Canon Law, their own rules, or even just followed common sense, much terrible damage, and re-offending, could have been prevented. But, because religious superiors acted in a way that was neither transparent nor accountable, terrible mistakes were made. Again, this involved failing to follow their own rules, which, in theory allow for accountability and transparency.

Consider the case of Marcial Marciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. How did he get away with it for so long? This whole sorry saga might well have been cut short if there had been more transparency and accountability. If the rule of the Legionaries allowed for a culture of abuse and secrecy, then why on earth did the Congregation for Religious ever approve the rule in the first place? Marciel was allowed to flourish because he had powerful friends in the world who backed him to the hilt, and because he also had powerful friends in the Vatican, a Vatican that was seemingly divided against itself. The case of Marciel is just one reason why we desperately need a properly functioning Roman Curia once more. I wonder how many vocations Marciel destroyed!

The crisis of government is also apparent in the long running sage of the Vatican Bank. This is so complicated a story that I cannot possibly comment on it, but it has been going on far far too long. Catholics the world over want to hear no more about the Vatican bank. Is that too much to ask? It is bringing us all in to disrepute.

Now it would be pushing it to claim that the scandal of the Vatican bank was somehow putting people off coming to Church. I have never heard anyone say “I don’t go to Mass any more, Father, ever since I read about Roberto Calvi.” But the truth of the matter is that the various scandals (especially the child abuse scandal) and less than scandals – the huge cock-ups in which the Vatican until recently seemed to specialise – do make the task of evangelisation much harder. All of the mismanagement and bad government represents a shift away from the leadership of someone like King David (in his youth at least) to the tyranny of Ahab and Jezebel, a shift from a discourse based on love, to a discourse based on power.

If we talk about love, and we practice it, we can evangelise, even effectively so. If we are caught up in the politics of power, our talk will be tainted with the whiff of power and our attempts at evangelisation will lack all credibility. You can’t proclaim Jesus Christ who died on a Cross, while at the same time living the life of Rodrigo Borgia.

No contradictions there, other than in the mind of someone unable to see past their deeply embedded prejudices.

Having no belief in “God” does not exclude the possibility of doubt. It merely is being honest. The truly honest position for a believer ought to also include doubt. Without any doubt, what is the purpose of faith?

Atheism is indeed a generic term, which covers a variety of positions, some stronger than others.

$20596475

Almost everybody would also be against such things. I certainly am.

However, I suspect that our definitions of what constitute such events would be very different.

http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

Unsurprising that you seek to deny the clear meaning of your own words.

Jonathan West

By the way, taking the issue of governance and the child abuse scandal, I’ve searched this site in vain for any mention that National Catholic Safeguarding Commission chairman Danny Sullivan appeared on Panorama Monday before last and supported mandatory reporting of child abuse.

$20596475

I am not denying anything! I am pointing out your error. Not that there is any hope of you accepting that.

My words are clear enough to everyone but those who see everything with both eyes shut.

http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

You seek to except yourself from your own definition of “atheist”, despite stating your belief in its central defining doctrine. Which is clearly irrational.

You are as the emperor without any clothes.

$20596475

Not at all. It is you who just doesn’t get it!

I don’t believe in “God” but I don’t regard myself as an atheist because I acknowledge doubt, and therefore categorise myself as an agnostic. There is a middle way. It isn’t always black and white. I cannot say I am believer, if I have doubt. Neither can I say I am an atheist. I am agnostic.

I believe every honest person has to admit to some doubt. Believers counter theirs with faith, but the doubt has to be there.

http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

bla-bla-bla, and meanwhile, according to you, “atheist … is just a generic term for those who don’t believe in a “God”“

$20596475

Still don’t “get it” do you? For someone who is totally convinced of his own superior intelligence you do struggle sometimes to see the obvious.

Atheist is indeed a generic term for those who don’t believe in “God”.

I don’t currently believe, but I don’t rule out completely that I might be wrong. That has always been my position, which is why I classify myself as agnostic, and not atheist.

If you need to really study this in detail may I recommend you to read “In God we doubt” by John Humphrys or “How to be an Agnostic” by Mark Vernon.

http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

You’re no agnostic, private.

Anyway, looks like that’s yet another thread that has been dissolved into nothing more than yet another stream of your pointless and irrelevant rubbish, so ta-ta

And I fail to see how attempts by you to join in discussion of internal questions of Church governance could possibly be viewed as being coherent with your false claims that you refrain from discussing anything that is internal to the Catholic Religion.

$20596475

In my opinion you are no Christian Mr JP but that doesn’t stop you claiming to be one.

As you are the one who diverts threads take that responsibility yourself.

John O’Leary

I can’t believe in the arrogance, wilful blindness and plain bloody stupidity of people who seem to think that this kind of problem only emerged in the ‘modern’ Church. It’s ALWAYS been there, as my own mother could attest, and thank God for the modern Church, where such crimes can finally be brought into the light instead of covered up, as they were for many centuries. What you like to smugly condemn as modernism is no less than the work of the Spirit.

http://www.vivificat.org/ Teófilo de Jesús

Have you done so? If you have, my apologies.

john hickey

Ho ho Teofilo. No, I was just trying to start a trend by pointing out that Pope Francis had. . . in case no one had noticed. On my pension I’m not far off having nothing and I do not own the house I live in. . . but when the poor man gives up everything it doesn’t make a splash. That’s what the parable of the rich young man is about isn’t it? I am a recent owner of a computer and have only come on to the internet and thought I’d try to make cheerful contact with other Catholics. I’ve already given up since the amount of vitriol I find on such sites I can find anywhere. Being a Christian is never easy, but haven’t you noticed how much slander is on such sights. All ego. . . I’d prefer to stay with the Pope, whoever that is. My knowledge of encyclicals, councils etc is pretty elementary. I never studied it all and probably never will. My vocation was hewing wood and hauling water which I do as best I can.
As regards most of the commentators. . . I can’t help thinking of antimaccassars. Altogether too stuffy. I like fresh air.

http://www.vivificat.org/ Teófilo de Jesús

Ah, Got it. I understand!

~Theo

john hickey

rjt1

I think you’ve got me wrong there. When I say modernism, I am talking about a philosophical/theological movement which relies on subjectivity as its source of truth. Not to be confused with modernity. No doubt one can disagree about what is ‘the’ problem. I would amend my comment to say that modernism is ‘a’ major problem.

John O’Leary

Much of what you say I don’t disagree with. What makes my blood boil is the blanket condemnation of Vatican 2, not by you, but by so many of the commentators here, as the chief cause of what people see as chaos in the Church today.

Vatican 2 was nothing less than the irruption of the Holy Spirit into a moribund Church. Has everything that has been done in the name of ‘the spirit of Vatican 2′ been good? Of course not. What we see today is a living, struggling, vital, mess-making, triumphing Church. That’s the Church I want to belong to.

rjt1

I’m totally ‘in favour’ of Vatican II but we have to distinguish between the authentic Vatican II and the ‘council of the media’ – a phantom associated with the inauthentic ‘spirit’ of Vatican II which doesn’t ‘stand up’ if one actually reads the documents. Vatican II opened up surprising new perspectives, e.g. on ecumenism, but is not a break from what went before – this is where both self-designated ‘traditionalists’ and ‘progressives’ ironically agree with each other in deviating from the Council. On the ‘progressive’ side, the Council became the excuse for all sorts of toxic theological nonsense. I’m not sure the ‘traditionalist’ element have much influence but the internet gives them a megaphone which makes them appear more significant than they otherwise would. I’m not convinced the Church was moribund in this country: it was making an impressive number of converts. I don’t think that could be a symptom of a lack of vitality.

SimonS

Thanks for commenting this, btw. I missed that!

Glad to see that someone relevant gets it.

James M

What happens if the Pope is a Modernist, or at least a liberal ? No remedy is possible, is what happens. That is the drawback with having a dictator in a mitre as Top Man. If that is not a design flaw, nothing is.

Cardinal Bea

Vatican II was an irruption of the devil himself into what was a very healthy Church. At least -aming the laity. Yes – the devil.

The Holy Ghost had nothing whatever to.do with Vatican II.

MarcAlcan

Fr Lucie-Smith, very good article.
However you got one thing wrong. Solomon was not really great. Yes indeed he was a builder and was wise. But his idolatry brought about the dividing of the Kingdom of Israel. David was told that Solomon will be punished for this but not in his lifetime (because of God’s love for David). So the punishment was meted out post Solomon.

MarcAlcan

For one thing I am sick and tired of people complaining that Evangelization is hampered by this and that crisis.
The crisis has happened. That’s it. Now get to work. There is nothing impossible or hard for the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and early Christians faced tougher times than us. This kind of whingeing and griping will never get us anywhere. So there’s a mess. Let’s work with the mess and around the mess to help get rid of the mess.

There will always be crisis in one form or another in the Church because she is composed of frail human beings. Much of the crisis is also due to misinformation so we need to get the truth out.

If we will always whinge about the crisis, the nothing will get done. We have to act now. Evangelize the Baptised!

Eyang

God bless you John Hickey. You are a holy man.

Pete Hilz

The problem with the church is a simple one. The shepherds are failing to lead the sheep into becoming Christ like.They are taught and know The Good News to the nth degree. But they have no idea how to live it in real life, and so have no idea how to truly lead us home. Whats worse they really do not seem to care we are walking away in droves from The Catholic Church. Man can only stand supporting so much hypocrisy for so long and then it all becomes rather pointless. Shake the dust off your shoes on the way out and leave them to it. The simplest task of all is to love ALL creation and then everything else will follow. But no they pick and choose what bits of The Good News they follow. Oh yes lets pray lots, then we dont actually have to live it. Bah Humbug I’m off.